Trump/Putin disaster summit. And also overseas visit w/ NATO & UK.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Seems like a security risk.

It would be too easy to confuse with the real thing.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Trump is 100% right on the fact that all NATO countries must pay 2% of gdp on defense.

2% was a ten-year target agreed to in 2014.


Maybe NATO members should conspire with Russia against American interests? Then Trump would be all in favor of paying their defense costs.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I think I read that Iceland is a NATO member (since its foundation in 1949), and doesn't even have a military force at all. I guess they are just lovers and not fighters.

They don't need a military, they have Vikings.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Any European Country who doesnt pay 2% of their GDP in defense then should not have the audacity to criticize US foreign policy then since it is the US who is spending their own money to defend them.

Don't be an idiot. If a friend gives you something, knowing that it antagonizes your beliefs or is something you generally hate, of course you have the right to criticize them for it. The only thing is that in addition to criticism, they should be prepared to develop capabilities that enable them to have a more independent foreign policy.

If Europeans problem with the US is the fact that the US has military bases in Europe then they should tell that to the US and then I would support the US withdrawing their troops from European bases(except maybe the UK) .


The thing is Europe wants America to defend them but are not willing to spend their own money on it either to maintain their own defenses and that is the part which is maddening

Germans want Donald Trump to pull US troops out of Germany, poll finds

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

This is actually an issue that I agree with Trump on. I don't think it is too unfair to ask all of the various NATO nations to contribute their fair share to the organization's overall defensive budget. Of course, if I were President, I would be making efforts to deal with our national deficit and adjust our own military spending. Yes, the United States should continue in its role as the primary force in this alliance, but asking others to contribute as they should isn't that ridiculous of an idea.

Except who decides what they should? The US, with its bloated defense establishment, or NATO as a whole?

The member states of NATO all agreed years ago to increase spending to 2% of GDP by 2024 and are on track to meet that goal. This is not controversial.

This is not an issue. It's just what Trump has chosen to rant about, either because of his mental impairments, or because he really is trying to destroy America's alliances.

"America shouldn't pay for other nations' defense" is an ancient Soviet talking point. It's bull excrement. There are legitimate discussions about America's role abroad, and about military spending. But no one - least of all Trumpy - has brought up any legitimate criticsm of NATO or its structure and funding.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's adorably optimistic.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Trump blasts Prime Minister Theresa May in interview published during his first official visit to Britain

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's also apparently avoiding London, for fear that his bigger, smarter doppleganger will steal his spotlight:

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Okay I got to get this off my chest. Does anyone else think Trump wants an alone meeting with Putin because he’s going to give Vlad the go ahead to hack our voter rolls this November? Am I just being overly paranoid?

If you think Putin needs the permission of the star of the pee-tape for anything, you're not paranoid enough.

I think there's a possibility that Trump is insisting on it just because he knows it will be a good way to troll his critics, and because he likes how Vlad flatters him. But I wouldn't bet money on it.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The timing by Mueller to indict those 12 Russian intelligence (gov) officials is perfect.
It gives trump and his boss, Putin, plenty of things to discuss in their meeting in Helsinki.
LOL.

It is a message, from the United States establishment (aka. 'The Deep State') to the Russians.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Queen Reminds Trump How to Walk, Trump Quickly Forgets Her Majesty’s Advice

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I was at the protest in London, it was awesome and lovely. Trump has actually united Remainers & Brexiteers in their hatred of him. Amazing. I still can't believe the President of the United States was triggered by a small balloon.

They're saying 250,000 were there, I have no idea where that came from, it seemed more like 60k-100k. The placards were epic.

On behalf of the United States of America, thank you for participating in the protest against trump. 60k-100k people, in a foreign country (outside the US) is a huge number.
The Orange Slug deserved "the welcome" that you and London gave him.

Real nice. Maybe the next time they need help we'll sit back and watch them do it alone.

You're a modern Republican, Reaganfan. (The irony is painful.) We already understand that your party wants to abandon our fellow democracies to destablization by the Kremlin, just like you're helping them do here at home.  You don't need to keep reminding us.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

White House: Trump-Putin summit 'is on' after hacking indictment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

After all, why wouldn't America's own version of Yeltsin meet privately with the former KGB agent who engineered his ascension to his current post?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I’ve been holding my tongue so, so well for the last 2 years, but that’s it - everyone has to go, down to the local Republican Dog-Catcher.

Seconded! Though I have not been holding my tongue at all. In fact my tongue is pretty exhausted.

These last few days, it hasn't seemed necessary for me to post at all.

Trump,, the American right, and the GOP are publicly demonstrating that all my harshest criticisms  of them are completely true.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Never trump means NEVER.

Not in my view it doesn't. Only hard-line ideological extremists (such as many of the users on this website) would adhere to such a stance.

I'm sorry, but how is that? If you support the president 50% of the time, you are not a "Never Trump" voter, because you sometimes vote for him. "Never Trump" implies total opposition. That's not extremism; that's what the word "never" means.

If on a regular basis, we saw a significant minority of Congressional Republicans (say 30-40%) breaking ranks to vote against the administration on key issues, then maybe you could make the argument that voting to reelect Republican Congresspeople is not incompatible with the "Never Trump" label. The issue is, we don't see that. On each of the landmark votes of this presidency, there has never been any question that all but a handful of Republicans will vote with the administration—AHCA failed by one vote in the Senate, with 49 of 52 Republican Senators voting in favor. With a tiny handful of exceptions, Congressional Republicans aren't calling for the ouster of the leadership or general opposition to the administration as a matter of principle. They may have a few quibbles with this or that policy, but it's clear that for them, the benefits of having Trump in the White House outweigh the costs. Ergo, if you're voting for a Republican candidate for House or Senate this fall, in all probability that candidate is going to vote with the administration 90% of the time, whatever personal problems they may have with the president or his rhetoric.

Simply put, there is no anti-Trump caucus within the Congressional GOP when it comes to policy or official action. A handful of Republicans have said or implied that Trump is unfit to continue as president; most either embrace him, or continue to support him despite his being 'rough around the edges.' If being "Never Trump" doesn't mean voting against the administration, what does it mean? Making a strongly-worded statement when he cozies up to the Russians? Expressing disapproval at a healthcare bill you ultimately vote for? If your distaste for Trump is personal rather than political, that may be perfectly reasonable—but then you're not "Never Trump," you're "Sometimes Trump." Those are not the same thing.

It seems by their actions that the vast majority of Republicans actually do agree with Trump on the vast majority of issues—in which case it makes perfect sense to continue to vote for and with him on those issues. If you look at his dealings with Russia, his policies on immigration and national security, and his actions on financial and environmental deregulation and see nothing wrong, great: continue to vote for Republican candidates and vote to reelect him in 2020. But if you actually believe his presidency is a threat to American democracy, if you actually believe his continued presence in office does lasting harm to our republican institutions, then voting to reelect a Congressional majority that has demonstrated it will do nothing to oppose that beyond the occasional strongly worded statement betrays either a weakness of conviction or an absence of principle.

In 1864, War Democrats broke ranks with their party to vote for Abraham Lincoln—a man with whom they had significant political differences on race, slavery, and economic policy—because they believed his opponent's election posed an existential threat to American democracy. That is what a "Never ____" movement looks like. If you're not willing to break ranks and vote for a candidate you might be less than happy with to oppose the administration, then you have clearly decided the benefits of that administration's conduct outweigh the costs. Again, that's fine if that's what you believe—but don't then call yourself a "Never Trump" voter, because that's not what you are.

The issues the Majority of Republicans and Trump disagree in are: Russia , Tarriffs , and partly Immigration.

And on issues there is really nothing Congress can do because:

- Muller investigation has not concluded yet

- You need 2/3 or both houses to vote to take a President power away to implement Tariffs and there are enough Populist Democrats and Populist Republicans to stop that from happening

- On Immigration Trump has not gotten his wall or the changes to the immigration system he wants(Because Republicans dont support it). Trump has just basically been able to get rid of past executive orders on the issues.



On Taxes , Regulations and Judges Republicans and Trump Agree because in that case it is Trump who is agreeing with the GOP , not the other way around.

Trump has been in open violation of the Emoluments Clause since the moment he took his oath of office. He can be impeached on that basis at any time the Congressional Republicans choose. The result would be President Pence, who would arguably be better for both the Party and their issues.  It's a cult and the only thing that matters is furthering the cult and its messiah - issues and legalities are only justifications for furthering the cult.